kkseal,
As you have cognized but
for any body not trying "lateral thinking" on chart it Will be difficult to understand
CV's remark of Heisenberg analogy,he actually meant Price & Momentum,on any chart and
"Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" (this is Quantam physics ,the famous
"The Observer Effect" & Schrdinger's debate with Eienstin etc etc)
implies that if we continue increasing the accuracy with which one of these is measured
(or defined), the other will be measured (or defined) with less and less accuracy."
His approach to EW is indisputable but here is my internal contradiction:
As you have mentioned about Left Lobe & Right Lobe ,i doubt after my Medulla oblangita,
god may have forgotten to put the Left lobe.Havent you heard that joke The astute
state-of-art Ford Car bought by somebody stopped running after few months,all the Chief
Engg. were summoned ,this has never happened with any brand new Ford,these guys when opened
the bonnet found the E N G I N E was missing,then they concluded as the manufacturer was
'Ford' hence this car ran for few months simply on GOODWILL.This may also have happened
with my Left Lobe.
Positivism:
Positivism is a philosophy that states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific
knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories
through strict scientific method. It was developed by Auguste Comte (widely regarded as
the first true sociologist) in the middle of the 19th century.
Modern positivism
The key features of positivism as of the 1950s, are:
1) A focus on science as a product, a linguistic or numerical set of statements;
2) A concern with axiomatization, that is, with demonstrating the logical structure and
coherence of these statements;
3) An insistence on at least some of these statements being testable, that is amenable
to being verified, confirmed, or falsified by the empirical observation of reality;
statements that would, by their nature, be regarded as untestable included the
theological; (Thus positivism rejects much of classical metaphysics.)
4) The belief that science is markedly cumulative;
5) The belief that science is predominantly transcultural;
6) The belief that science rests on specific results that are dissociated from the
personality and social position of the investigator;
7) The belief that science contains theories or research traditions that are largely
commensurable;
8) The belief that science sometimes incorporates new ideas that are discontinuous from
old ones;
9) The belief that science involves the idea of the unity of science, that there is,
underlying the various scientific disciplines, basically one science about one real
world.
Positivism is also depicted as "the view that all true knowledge is scientific,"
and that all things are ultimately measurable. Positivism is closely related to
reductionism, both involve the view that "entities of one kind... are reducible to
entities of another," such as societies to numbers, or mental events to chemical
events. It also involves the contention that "processes are reducible to physiological,
physical or chemical events," and even that "social processes are reducible to
relationships between and actions of individuals," or that "biological organisms are
reducible to physical systems."
Upto now most of the system based traders will agree (self included) & about
non effectiveness of EW.
Now steps in My Self Contradiction:
Philosophical issues of Positivism:
Certain problems arise with the positivist belief system once it is accepted:
Since all of our most certain knowledge, namely, that of our ourselves and our
own mental states, is inaccessible to objective science (being personal), how
is positivism to account for what we know? And since our inferences about what
we do not directly know, but only surmise on the basis of our A C T U A L
E X P E R I E N C E,(my invain attempt to convey to a non-pro)comprise the
objective world of scientific entities imagined by positivist philosophy,how
is it supposed to be possible to account for any knowledge
at all positivistically?;
Since the self and its knowledge is known and OUR experiences (not only subjectively but)
Q U A L I T A T I V E L Y not quantitavely, how is it supposed to be possible ? to give an
objective quantitative account of the source and core of all knowledge--scientific
and otherwise------- ?;
If an experience is 'reduced' to something else, does it cease to exist as a
subjective qualitative thing, or not? If not, doesn't it remain in a crucial sense
unreduced to a 'scientific' object? If so, what inspired the 'reduction'?; and
Since ideology is unscientific, how is a 'SCIENTIFIC' IDEOLOGY supposed to escape
internal contradiction?
Asish
